IR and the Global South: Revising Obstacles to a Global Discipline

Lacin Idil Oztig(1*)

(1) Department of Political Science and International Relations, Yildiz Technical University
(*) Corresponding Author


The IR discipline is marked by a strong center-periphery inequality that is perpetuated through theories, methodologies, and concepts produced in the Global North that do not adequately capture the diverse experiences of Global South states and societies. In tandem with growing critiques of Western-centrism and calls for global IR, the discipline has now become more heterogeneous and inclusive, and IR scholars are more attentive to the global IR debate than ever before.  Yet, the discipline has not become truly global, as many Global South scholars are absent from the major debates in the field and there are still sharp geographic differences with respect to IR knowledge production. Even though Global South countries have enormous potential to enrich and globalize IR with their history, political thinkers, and religious and philosophical traditions, this potential remains largely untapped. While Global South scholars develop alternative perspectives and engage in theorizing practices, these efforts have not yet been embodied in the form of an IR theory that provides alternative explanations of world politics. Equally important, these perspectives are not echoed in much of the mainstream accounts in IR.  This study contributes to the global IR debate by problematizing the dynamics behind the insufficient development and representation of Global South IR theories and perspectives in the discipline. After delving into entrenched Western-centrism and the asymmetries of knowledge production in the discipline, the present study puts into spotlight the intellectual and material barriers that feed off each other and perpetuate the inequalities in IR knowledge production.

Full Text:




Aydinli, E. & Biltekin, G. (2018). Widening the World of International Relations. Routledge.

Demeter, M. (2020). Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South: Questioning Inequality and Under-representation. Palgrave Macmillan.

Friedrichs, J. (2004). European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. Routledge.

Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, I., & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (Eds.). (2016). Globalizing International Relations: Scholarship amidst Diversity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Slater, D. (2004). Geopolitics and the Post-colonial: Rethinking North–South Relations. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Tickner, B. A. & Blanley, L. D. (2012). Thinking International Relations Differently. Routledge.

Chapters in Edited Books

Makdisi, K. (2009). Reflections on the state of IR in the Arab region. In A. B. Tickner & O. Weaver (Eds.), International Relations Scholarship around the World. Routledge.

Sariolghalam, M. (2009). Iran: accomplishments and limitations in IR. In A. B. Tickner & O. Weaver (Eds.), International Relations Scholarship around the World. Routledge.

Sergounin, A. (2009). Russia: IR at a Crossroads. In A. B. Tickner & O. Weaver (Eds.), International Relations Scholarship around the World. Routledge.

Weaver, O. & Tickner, D. A. (2009). Introduction: geocultural epistemologies. In A. B. Tickner & O. Weaver (Eds.), International Relations Scholarship around the World. Routledge.

Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., & Peters, I. (2016). Introduction: Global(izing) International Relations: Studying Geo-Epistemological Divides and Diversity. In I. Peters & W. Wemheuer-Vogelaar (Eds.), Globalizing International Relations: Scholarship amidst Diversity (pp. 2). Palgrave Macmillan.


Cossens, S. M. (2023). El caso mesoamericano de relaciones internacionales: el comercio de obsidiana como motor en la creación de un sistema internacional prehispánico [The Mesoamerican Case of International Relations: Obsidian Trade as an Engine in the Creation of a Pre-Hispanic International System]. Doctoral Thesis, FCPyS, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, CDMX.

Journal Article (retrieved online, with DOI)

Abu-Bakare, A. (2022). Your Work Is Not International Relations. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 47(2).

Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15.

Alatas, F. S. (2003). Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599-613. DOI:10.1177/00113921030516003.

Anderl, F. & Witt, A. (2020). Problematising the Global in Global IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 49(1).

Aydinli, E. & Aydinli, J. (2024). Exposing linguistic imperialism: Why global IR has to be multilingual. Review of International Studies, 1-22.

Balci, A., & Kardaş, T. (2023). The Ottoman International System: Power Projection, Interconnectedness, and the Autonomy of Frontier Polities. Millennium, 51(3), 866-891.

Cho, C. Y. (2013). Colonialism and imperialism in the quest for a universalist Korean-style international relations theory. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 28(4), 680-700.

Ersoy, E. (2022). Epistemic hierarchies and asymmetrical dialogues in global IR: increasing the epistemic gravity of the periphery through thematic density. Third World Quarterly, 44(3), 513-531.

Egbetoku, A., Olofinyehun, A., Sanni, M., Ayo-Lawal, A., Oluwatope, O., & Yussuff, U. (2022). The production of social science research in Nigeria: status and systemic determinants. humanities and social sciences communications, 9(1).

González, C. G. M. S. (2021). El humanocentrismo ante el etnocentrismo: ubicando la experiencia humana al centro de la disciplina de Relaciones Internacionales. Relaciones Internacionales, 48, 51-66.

Hwang, Y.-J. (2021). Reappraising the Chinese School of International Relations: A postcolonial perspective. Review of International Studies, 47(3), 311–330. doi:10.1017/S0260210521000152.

Kristensen, M. P. (2019). Southern sensibilities: advancing third wave sociology of international relations in the case of Brazil. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22, 468-494.

Lohaus, M. & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (2020). Who Publishes Where? Exploring the Geographic Diversity of Global IR Journals. International Studies Review, 23(3), 645-669.

Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, J. M. (2018). Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484.

Mehmetcik, H., Dal, P. M., & Hakses, H. (2024). Understanding Turkish Foreign Policy Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis. Alternatives.

Niang, A. (2016). The imperative of African perspectives on International Relations (IR). Political Studies Association, 35(4).

Okur, A. M. & Aytekin, E. C. (2023). Non-Western Theories in International Relations Education and Research: The Case of Turkey/Turkish Academia. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(1), 19-44.

Tickner, B. A. (2013). Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646. DOI: 10.1177/1354066113494323.

Torres, C. F. A. & Alburez-Gutierrez. (2022). North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production. PNAS, 19(10).

Umar, M. R. A. (2023). ‘Which Part of Your Work is IR?’ on Western Dominance and the Discipline of International Relations in Indonesia. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political.

Journal Article (retrieved online, without DOI or page numbers)

Aydinli, E. & Mathews, J. (2008). Periphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: Spinning IR theory out of Anatolia. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 693-712. Retrieved from:

Aydinli, E. & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 289-303.

Biersteker, J. T. (1999). Eroding Boundaries, Contested Terrain. International Studies Review, 1(1), 3–9.Retrieved from:

Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past “Western” IR? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5–23.Retrieved from:

Chen, C.-C. (2012). The Im/Possibility of Building Indigenous Theories in a Hegemonic Discipline: The Case of Japanese International Relations. Asian Perspective, 36(3), 463–492. Retrieved from:

Hoffman, S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Discoveries and Interpretations: Studies in Contemporary Scholarship, 1, 41-60. Retrieved from:

Keim, W. (2008). Social sciences internationally: The problem of marginalisation and its consequences for the discipline of sociology. African Sociological Review / Revue Africaine de Sociologie, 12(2), 22–48. Retrieved from:

Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374-402.

Tsygankov, A., & Tsygankov, P. (2014). Russian IR Theory: The Сrisis of a Globally-Pluralist Discipline. European Review of International Studies, 1(2), 92–106. Retrieved from:

Pellerin, H. (2012). Which IR Do You Speak? Languages as Perspectives in the Discipline of IR. Perspectives 20(1), 59–60. Retrieved from:

Waever, O. (1998). The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687–727. Retrieved from:

Electronic source

Chatterjee, D. (2022, August 5). How international conferences fail scholars from the global South. Medium. Retrieved from

Wade, L. (2019, July 23). Mexico's new president shocks scientists with budget cuts and disparaging remarks. Science.Retrieved from


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 451 | views : 602


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View My Stats


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.